DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 03/02/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the reference WO2008/032328 uses nanoparticles to improve dissolution of novaluron, while instant invention constitutes particle size several orders of magnitude larger based upon amended claims filed on 03/02/2026.
This is not found persuasive because of the following reasons:
Particle size of novaluron is interpreted as property of the compound novaluron, which has been taught by prior art WO2008/032328. MPEP 2112.01.II states "[p]roducts of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable, as indicated in MPEP 2112.01.II. Since prior art teaches novaluron in the composition, the property, e.g., particle size, would be capable of being obtained.
Further, because this technical feature, particle size of active ingredient novaluron, is added in amended claims, while reference WO2008/032328 does not teach the right particle sizes, as presented below in this office action, this technical feature is taught by prior art Peris et al. (CA02691333, same as WO2020225428, 12/11/2020). Therefore, the shared technical feature does not contribute novelty to the claimed invention groups over this prior art.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 28, 30, 32-35, 38-40, 45, 47-48 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected groups II, III, IV, and V. there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 03/02/2026.
Status of Claims
Amendment filed on 03/02/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 3, 5-11, 14-24, 29, 31, 36-37, 41-44, 46, and 49-50 remain cancelled. Claim 2 is now cancelled.
Claims 1, 4, 12-13, 25-27, 32, 35, 39, and 48 are amended. Claim 51 is new.
Claims 28, 30, 32-35, 38-40, 45, 47-48 are withdrawn for being drawn to nonelected groups.
Claims 1, 4, 12-13, 25-27 and 51 are pending and being examined herein on merits.
Priority
This instant application 18570401, filed on 12/14/2023, is a 371 of PCT/IB2022/055552, filed on 06/15/2022, which claims domestic benefit of 63/211391, filed on 06/16/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS), filed on 12/14/2023, 05/13/2024, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 26, and 51 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “d95” and “d90”, while Claims 26 and 51 each recites “D95” and “d90”. The format of the same terms should be consistent throughout the claim set, either uppercase “D” or lowercase “d”.
Claim 1 recites “f) … ii) … or H or OH. , wherein the combination …”. The period at the end of “or H or OH.” should be removed because it is not the end of the claim, and the comma “,” in front of “wherein the combination” should be placed behind “OH”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 4, 12-13, 25-27 and 51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “and optionally water” in line 6 and “(iii) water” at the end of the claim. It is unclear whether water is optional or water is required because of the conflicting scopes resulted from these two phrases.
Claim 1 recites “90% w/w of solid particles of novaluron”, “a) … comprising solid particles or novaluron …”, “and/or b) … comprising solid particles of novaluron …”. These phrases generate conflicting concepts and the claim scope is unclear. It is unclear whether the novaluron is in the form of solid particles, because “a)…comprising solid particles or novaluron” suggests that solid particles do not have to be novaluron, while “90% w/w of solid particles of novaluron” indicates the solid particles constitutes novaluron and b) indicates solid particles of novaluron in the composition.
Claim 1 recites “… wherein the solid particles of novaluron…, and a) …, and/or b) …, and/or c) …, and/or d) …, and/or e) …, and/or f) … i), and/or ii) …. , wherein … (i) …, (ii) …, and (iii) …”. It is unclear whether the phrases led by “wherein …(i)…, (ii)…, and (iii) …” belong to feature f), or to the general limitation scope similar to the first “wherein” in context. Further, it is unclear whether at least one of features a), b), c), d), e), f) (which one does not matter) is required for the limitation scope, or it is meant to be that feature a) has to be required based on “and a)”.
Claim 1 recites “wherein the solid particles of novaluron have a particle size distribution such that the d95 value is between 5 to 40 microns and the d90 value is 20 microns or less, and … e) the solid particles of novaluron have a particle size distribution d90 value of between 5 to 20 microns or between 10 to 20 microns “. Because the “wherein …” phrase is not part of the features a)-f), it is unclear how these different particle size values can be alternative. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation “d90 value is 20 microns or less”, and the claim also recites “d90 value of between 5 to 20 microns or between 10 to 20 microns”, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 13 recites “a) …, wherein: (i)…, and/or (ii) …, and/or (iii) …, and/or (iv) …, and/or (iv) …, (v) …, (vi) …, (vii) …, and/or (viii) …”. It is unclear why there is “a)”, but there is no following with “b)”. Also, it is unclear which features from (i) –(viii) are controlled by “and/or”, because v), (vi), (vii) do not lead by “and/or”, while (viii) still being led by “and/or”. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the claim is interpreted as features from (i) –(viii) are equal alternatives that one or more can exist.
Claim 13 further recites “agricultural acceptable solid additive” and “functional additive”. The “agricultural acceptable” or “functional” are relative terms which render the claim indefinite. The terms are defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Based on examples in instant specification, the agricultural acceptable solid additives can be filler and/or binder (Pg. 32, line 16), and functional additive can be anti-foaming agent, biocides, water absorbents, water scavengers, adjuvants and any combinations thereof (Pg. 34, Lines 9-11), while the exemplified individual additives, e.g., anti-foaming agent, biocides, water absorbents, water scavengers, adjuvants are listed in the claim as well. Therefore, what exact agents the relative terms include, and at what coverage the terms do not overlap with the individual agents already listed in claim are unclear. The metes and bounds of the claim is indefinite.
Claim 26 recites “novaluron in the form of solid particles and/or an amount of novaluron …, wherein the solid particles of novaluron have particle size …”. It is unclear whether “novaluron in the form of solid particle” is an alternative option led by “and/or an amount of novaluron”, and the novaluron in “an amount of novaluron” does not require novaluron to be in the form of solid particles. If novaluron does not require to be in the form of solid particles, later recitation of “wherein the solid particles of novaluron have particle size distribution” would fail to have sufficient antecedent basis.
Claims 4, 12, 25, and 51 are rejected accordingly because they are directly or indirectly depending on claim 1, and they do not clarify the issues in claim 1 as addressed above.
Claim 27 is rejected accordingly because it depends on claim 26 and it does not clarify the issue addressed above regarding claim 26.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1, 26 and 51 are interpreted as following.
Claim 1 is interpreted as a combination of solid novaluron and organo-silicone based surfactant, comprising a composition containing between about 10% to about 90% w/w of solid particles of novaluron and between about 0.5% to about 5% w/w organo-silicone based surfactant, based on the total weight of the composition, and optionally water.
The phrases led by a), b), c), d), e), f) and the last session in claim led by “wherein the combination is a mixture… (i) …, (ii)…, (iii)…”, are interpreted as alternative features, properties, or “intended use” of the combination, and at least one of these alternatives is required to present in the combination.
Further, the limitation “and/or e) the solid particles of novaluron have a particle size distribution d90 value of between 5 to 20 microns or between 10 to 20 microns” is interpreted as an alternative of “wherein the solid particles of novaluron have a particle size distribution such that the d95 value is between 5 to 40 microns and the d90 value is 20 microns or less”, and at least one of them has to present in the combination. The particle size of solid particles of novaluron is interpreted as property of novaluron.
Claim 26 is interpreted as a water dispersible solid composition comprising solid novaluron particles and organo-silicone surfactant, dispersed in water in the form of solid particles, having novaluron particle size distribution of d95 value between 5 to 40 microns and d90 value 20 microns or less. Particle size is interpreted as property of novaluron.
Claim 51 is interpreted as intended use of the combination of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 4, 12-13, 26-27 and 51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peris et al. (WO2020225428, 12/11/2020, PTO-892).
Peris throughout the reference teaches agrochemical compositions for foliar application at low spray volumes for controlling agricultural pests, weeds or diseases (e.g., Abstract).
Regarding instant claims 1 and 4, Peris teaches the formulation comprises a) one or more active ingredient selected from the group of agrochemically applied insecticides (e.g., Claim 1; Pg. 4, item a)), which can be inhibitors of chitin biosynthesis selected from compounds including novaluron (e.g., Pg. 11, item 15), present in the formulation at a preferable amount from 0.5 to 30% by weight, or from 1 to 27.5% by weight, most preferable from 1.2 to 25% by weight (e.g., Claim 3; Pg. 4, bottom 3 lines) or other amounts such as from 5 to 12%, and from 10 to 20% (Pg. 5, top), or present at 0.025-30%, preferably 0.5-15% in wettable granule formulation (e.g., Pg. 9, middle, item a) (overlapping with between about 10 to about 90% w/w of solid particles in instant claim 1); b) at least one organo-silicone based surfactant (preferably a polyalkyleneoxide modified heptamethyltrisiloxane) (e.g., Claim 2; Pg. 4, item b)) (corresponding to organo-modified tri-siloxane in instant claim 1 f) i)) present in 0.5 to 15 % by weight, preferably from 0.75 to 10 % by weight, and more preferred from 1.0 to 6 % by weight (e.g., Claim 5; Pg. 5, top lines 4-5) (overlapping with range between about 0.5% to about 5% w/w organo-silicone based surfactant in instant claim 1); c3) optionally antifoam substance (e.g., Pg. 4, item c3)) (corresponding to instant claim 4); d) carriers solid or liquid.
Peris teaches the formulation can be tank-mix, most preferably ready to use formulation in contrast to tank mixes; the formulation can be in the forms of suspension concentrates, suspo-emulsions, emulsion concentrates, aqueous suspensions, water dispersible granule formulation (Pg. 8, bottom; Pg. 9, middle, WG) (corresponding to instant claim 1 a)-d)), showing the active ingredient (e.g., novaluron, Pg. 11, item 15), surfactants, dispersants, binder, antifoam, spreader, and filler (corresponding to instant claim 4) are mixed in water and finally pre-milled in a high shear rotor stator mixer to reduce and achieve the particle size D(v, 0.9) typically 1 to 15 microns (e.g., Pg. 21, Method 2: WG preparation), corresponding to a combination of solid novaluron and organo-silicone based surfactant, comprising a composition containing a mixture of solid particles of novaluron in instant claim 1, and corresponding to the water dispersible solid composition as a granular composition in instant claim 12, overlapping with d90 value of between 5 to 20 microns or between 10 to 20 microns in instant claim 1e), or d90 value of 20 microns or less in instant claims 1 and 4 c).
In light of claim interpretation, further regarding the particle size of solid ingredient, e.g., novaluron, is inherent property of the novaluron, which has been taught by prior art. MPEP 2112.01.II states "[p]roducts of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable, as indicated in MPEP 2112.01.II. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. Id. Therefore, prior art teaches novaluron in the composition, the particle size, e.g., d95 distribution value, at specified range would necessarily present or would be capable of being achieved.
Regarding instant claims 12-13, Peris teaches the combination of solid particles of active ingredient, e.g., novaluron (e.g., Pg. 11, item 15), with surfactants, dispersants, binder, antifoam, spreader, and filler can be a water dispersible granule formulation, which is free of oil additive (Pg. 21, Method: WG preparation), corresponding to instant claim 12 a), 13 a) and 13 v)-vi), The organo silicone surfactant in wettable granule formulation contains 0.025-15% organo silicone surfactant, preferably 0.05-7.5% (e.g., Pg. 9, Middle, WG, item b), overlapping with between about 1% to about 3% w/w in instant claim 12 d).
Peris teaches c1) anionic surfactants or dispersing aids suitable for the composition including alkaline earth metal and ammonium salts of alkylsulphonic or alkylphospohric acids as well as alkylarylsulphonic or alkylarylphosphoric acids, sodium salts of alkylnaphthalene sulphonic acids (sodium alkylnaphthalene sulfonate), salts of naphthalene-sulphonic acid-formaldehyde condensation products, sodium salt of phenolsulphonic acid, salts of polystyrenesulphonic acids, salt of lignosulphic acid (e.g., Pg. 15, top). MPEP 2112.01.II states "[p]roducts of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable, as indicated in MPEP 2112.01.II. Prior art teaches the same compounds as instantly claimed, being wetting agent or dispersing agent is the compound’s inherent property, corresponding to instant claim 13 i)-iv). In Peris wettable granule composition, these agents as c1) is added at 0.025-20%, preferably 0.5-10% (e.g., Pg. 9, Middle, WG, item c), overlapping with range between about 2% to about 5% in instant claim 13 ii), or between about 1% to about 15% in instant claim 13 iv).
Peris teaches rheological modifiers c2) such as polysaccharides including xanthan gum, guar gum and hydroxyethyl cellulose, clays including montmorillonite, bentonite, sepeolite, attapulgite, laponite, hectorite, and fumed silica can be included in the composition (e.g., Pg. 15, middle), and component c2) can present at amount of 0-20%, preferably 0-10% in wettable granule composition (e.g., Pg. 9, WG, middle), corresponding to filler and/or binder in instant claim 13 vi) and vii), being filler or binder is inherent property of the agents; overlapping with amount range between about 2% to about 50% in instant claim 13 viii).
Regarding instant claim 26, Peris teaches water dispersible granule formulation (e.g., Pg. 8, bottom; Pg. 21, Method: WG preparation) in wettable solid granule form (Pg. 9, middle, WG), comprising active ingredient (e.g., novaluron, Pg. 11, item 15), surfactants, dispersants, binder, antifoam, spreader, and filler mixed in water with achievable particle size D(v, 0.9) typically 1 to 15 microns (e.g., Pg. 21, Method 2: WG preparation), overlapping to d90 value 20 microns or less of novaluron particle size distribution. Regarding particle size of novaluron, in light of claim interpretation, as discussed above, it is property of novaluron. Since prior art teaches novaluron as active ingredient in the composition, the particle size distribution would be present or be capable of being achieved as compound property.
Regarding instant claim 27, Peris teaches that the formulation can be suspension concentrate, comprising a) active ingredient, e.g., novaluron, b) organo silicone surfactant, c1) wetting agent or dispersing agent, c2) rheological modifiers, e.g., filler or binder (e.g., Pg. 9, Top, SC, items a), b), c1) and c2)), wherein the ingredients constitute the water dispersible solid composition, e.g., the wettable granule composition (Pg. 9, middle, WG, items a), b), c1) and c2), and the particles are mixed with (or dispersed in) water (e.g., Pg. 21, top, SC preparation).
Regarding instant claim 51, Peris teaches the combination comprising water dispersible solid composition that can comprise a) active ingredient novaluron (Pg. 11, item 15) in solid form at amount a) at preferably 0.5-15% and b) organo-silicone based surfactant at preferably 0.05-7.5% (e.g., Pg. 9, middle, WG), with solid particle size distribution d90 value, e.g., D(v, 0.9), typically 1 to 15 microns (e.g., Pg. 21, Method 2: WG preparation). The amounts in Peris’ formulation result in weight ratio of organo-silicone based surfactant to novaluron between the range 15 : 1 (calculated from 7.5/0.5) to 1 : 300 (calculated from 15/0.05), overlapping with range between 50:1 to 1:100 in instant claim. In light of claim interpretation, particle size distribution is interpreted as property of the novaluron, which has been taught by prior art, therefore, the property, e.g., d95 range, would not be mutually exclusive and would be necessarily present or be capable of being obtained in prior art. Also in light of claim interpretation, a kit is intended use of the combination comprising the composition, which has been taught by prior art, and would be capable of achieving such intended use.
Peris does not teach the exact particle size distribution values, or exact amount ranges of novaluron and organo-silicone based surfactant in the composition.
It would have been prima facie obvious for a person with ordinary skills in the art to adjust amount ranges or particle size distribution to arrive at current invention. Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). MPEP §2144.05(I) states that “A prima facie case of obviousness typically exists when the ranges of a claimed composition overlap the ranges disclosed in the prior art.” See In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2003). For this instance, the ingredient amounts and particle size d90 values overlap with those taught by prior art. Regarding particle size d95, in light of claim interpretation, particle size distribution is interpreted as property of the novaluron, which has been taught by prior art, therefore, the property would not be mutually exclusive and would be necessarily present or be capable of being obtained in prior art. Furthermore, “[i]t would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize additive amount through nothing more than “routine experimentation,” because of a reasonable expectation of success resulting from the optimization for desirable features of intended use of the composition (MPEP §2144.05 (II)). See Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382; In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peris et al. (WO2020225428, 12/11/2020, PTO-892), as applied to claims 1, 4, 12-13, 26-27 and 51 above, further in view of Kohle et al. (CA02691333, same as WO2009003953, 01/08/2009, PTO-892).
Peris teaches the combination of solid particles of active ingredient, e.g., novaluron, and organo-silicone based surfactant, e.g., tri-siloxane heptamethyltrisiloxane, comprising water dispersible granule composition containing 0.025-30%, preferably 0.5-15% active ingredient, and between about 0.5% to about 5% w/w organo-silicone based surfactant in wettable granule formulation, with solid particle distribution d90 typically 1 to 15 microns in water, and the mixture can be in tank mix or suspension concentrate, as discussed above in detail and incorporated herein.
Regarding instant claim 25, Peris teaches the water dispersible solid composition can comprise a) active ingredient, e.g., novaluron (e.g., Pg. 11, item 15) present at 0.025-30% (e.g., Pg. 9, middle,WG, item a) (corresponding to instant claim 25 a); b) organo silicone surfactant present at amount range 0.025-15%, preferably 0.05-7.5% (e.g., Pg. 9, Middle, WG, item b) (overlapping with about 1.5% in instant claim 25 b); c1) dispersing aids or anionic surfactants (e.g., Pg. 15, top) (also as wetting agent as discussed above) at 0.025-20%, preferably, 0.5-10% (Pg. 9, middle, WG, item c1) (overlapping with about 9% of dispersing agent or about 3% of wetting agent in instant claim 25 c)-d); c2) rheological modifiers (corresponding to filler or binder as discussed above, while filler or binder is evidenced by instant specification as agriculturally acceptable solid additive) present at 0-20%, preferably 0-10% (Pg. 9, middle, WG, item c2) (overlapping with agriculturally acceptable solid additive about 6.5% in instant claim 25 e)).
Peris does not teach active ingredient in the composition can be about 80% as recited in instant claim 25.
Kohle throughout the reference teaches method for increasing resistance of a plant or of a plant’s seed to abiotic stress (e.g., Abstract).
Kohle teaches that active ingredients, e.g., insecticides/acaricides including growth regulator novaluron (e.g., Pg. 29, line 4), can be combined in a known manner with solvents, e.g., water, and carries, e.g., ground natural minerals including clays, talc, anionic emulsifiers such as alkylsulfonates and dispersants such as lignin-sulfite waste liquors and methylcellulose (e.g., Pg. 31, Lines 11-29), in the form of powders, granules by mixing active ingredients with solid carriers (e.g. Pg. 32, line 41-Pg. 33, line 4). In general, the formulations comprise from 0.01 to 95% by weight, preferably from 0.1 to 90% by weight, in particular from 5 to 50% by weight, of the active substance (e.g., Pg. 33, Lines 14-15), such as water dispersible powders and water-soluble powders can have 75 parts by weight of active substance ground in rotor-stator mill with addition of 25 parts by weight of dispersants, wetters and silica gel, with the active substance content of the formulation at 75% by weight (e.g., Pg. 34, Lines 25-28), which is about 80% (about interpreted as +/-10%, resulting in 72% to 88%).
It would have been prima facie obvious for a person with ordinary skills in the art prior to filing date to incorporate Kohle’s teaching to adjust the active ingredient amount in Peris’ composition to arrive at current invention. Because Peris indicates that the formulation preferably as ready to use formulations in contrast to tank mixes, offer the advantage of low spray volumes and thus, low but still effective amounts of active ingredients on the plants by using a higher concentration of organosilicone in the formulations of the invention as indicated herein resulting due to the low spray volume in a lower abundance in the environment after application (Pg. 2, middle), it would have motivated artisans in the field to seek raising the effective amounts of active ingredients, while Kohle provides evidence that active ingredients in solid dispersible forms can have as high as about 80%, e.g., 75%, of the formulation weight. It is well settled that it is a matter of obviousness for one of ordinary skill in the art to select a particular component from among many disclosed by the prior art as long as it is taught that the selection will result in the disclosed effect. Merck & Co., Inc. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Corkill, 771 F.2d 1496, 1500 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DONGXIU ZHANG SPIERING whose telephone number is (703)756-4796. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am-5:00pm (Except for Fridays).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, SUE X. LIU can be reached at (571)272-5539. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DX.Z./Examiner, Art Unit 1616
/SUE X LIU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1616
Prosecution Insights